Media reform and journalism

One of the most significant outcomes of the student-led mass uprising in July last year has been the substantial improvement in the media space, providing a much-needed breathing space for the mass media and opening the window of professional journalism to a large extent. While the freedom of the press is not yet fully guaranteed since the fall of the Hasina regime on August 5 last year, the situation has undeniably improved. It has become significantly easier to express opinions or raise questions on various issues, marking a positive step forward in the journey towards press freedom. 

During the 15 years of the autocratic regime of Hasina, it had become gradually difficult for the Press to work independently and professionally.  The regime systematically imposed various barriers to curb freedom of the Press, which drove the mass media to adopt self-censorship for their survival.  Although the ousted regime allowed a large number of new newspapers and television channels in the name of media freedom, most of these were assigned to support the regime's actions and misdeeds. The rise of pro-regime mass media, backed by the state, has become a significant obstacle to a free Press. 

The pro-Hasina media appeared as a big tool to suppress the truth and the misdeeds of the autocratic regime, which included human rights abuses, corruption, and political repression, and counter the other media that have tried to do journalism as professionally as possible. In this process, a good number of senior and leading journalists appeared as hard-loyalists of Hasina and political activists of the Bangladesh Awami League, the party in power at that time. Thus, they have contributed to distorting the media and undermining the values and ethics of journalism. 

Now, in a changed environment, it is also not easy to bring the mass media into order and restore the ethical practice of journalism. To achieve this, the Yunus-led interim government formed the Media Reform Commission in November last and the commission submitted a comprehensive report in March, this year. The commission conducted a wide range of consultations with various stakeholders and reviewed proposals presented by different parties. The commission also examined some of the best practices in other countries and attempted to align the relevant recommendations with them. Through a comprehensive review, the report assesses the current state of the newspaper and electronic media in the country, identifies various flaws and problems within the industry, and ultimately provides a set of recommendations to enhance the overall condition of the press. 

Now, the implementation of the recommendations is subject to scrutiny first. It is also understandable that the government can't implement all the recommendations. Some of the suggestions may be implemented immediately or within a short time. Again, some are subject to implementation in the medium and long run. Additionally, some will never be implemented. The interim government may move to implement the recommendations that can be implemented immediately and also initiate the process of implementing some others. Before starting the implementation, the government needs to bring the media houses on board, which is also not an easy task. 

Furthermore, it is crucial to note that the country's journalist unions, associations, and organisations have yet to comprehensively review or discuss the commission report. This lack of thorough review and knowledge-based debate among media people is contributing to some misunderstandings about the reform proposals. It is imperative that these organisations, along with those working in the media or interested in journalism, come forward to review the report. Their active involvement is essential for a successful and comprehensive reform of the media landscape.

If journalists lack interest in reforming the media or are content with the status quo, they will be compelled to compromise their professionalism further. Ethical values of journalism will also be damaged to a greater extent. Though any reform is a painful process, in the greater interest of the mass media, some measures are necessary as recommended by the commission. From restricting cross-ownership to abolishing repressive laws, all these measures may bear fruit in the long run, provided that media personnel feel a unified sense of urgency to move forward. Differences of opinion regarding the acceptance and implementation of the various recommendations already exist, and this is not a problem. The core challenge is the start of the reform, which involves implementing only a few of the recommendations in the first phase. 

asjadulk@gmail.com